Passing the test

Most states, including New York, have laws shielding reporters from government demands to reveal the names of confidential sources. Last year, 42 state attorneys general called on Congress to pass a federal shield law, complaining that the lack of a federal standard is "undermining state shield laws."

The latest effort to adopt such a standard may take a step forward today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the proposed Free Flow of Information Act has the support of committee member Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.. Colleagues who value a free press and the public's right to know should support it, too.

Reporters and editors want news sources to go on the record. But in some cases, it is necessary to shield sources who can only be coaxed to reveal what they know if they are guaranteed protection from retribution. Important stories like the botched anthrax investigation, the mistreatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital and nuclear power plant safety lapses all involved confidential sources at some point.

The current version of the shield law has evolved to answer critics who resist giving reporters carte blanche. It exempts from protection information about terrorism or other imminent harm to national security, as well as serious crimes like kidnapping and murder.

After Time magazine was compelled to turn over a reporters' notes in 2005, Editor Norm Pearlstine said Time lost valuable sources "who insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories."

Getting to the bottom of important stories you need to know has never been easy. A federal shield law will help ensure that it doesn't get even harder.